Guest blog by Amosi Chipasi, Agness Mumba-Wilkins, Besnart Simunchembu, Cornelius Chipoma, Laura Brannelly and Mutinta Kawina
After 12 weeks of participating in the Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) course conducted by the Building State Capability (BSC), the ‘Aspiring Ants’ Team reflects on a learning journey that has provided great insights on how a small team may resolve complex education challenges systemically in Zambia. The team comprised a mix of members coming from the Directorate of Secondary Education (DSE), Ministry of Education, Teaching Service Commission (TSC), Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), Promoting Equality in African Schools (PEAS) and the British Council.
The key learning for the group is that small teams can assist in resolving complex education system problems. Even though the team was broadly tentative about how much could be done to trigger system reform over the short course period, the group learned that the potential to cause a policy change process lay in the power of teams. The power of teams, in turn, derives especially from learning and relearning given a relevant mix of people, authority, skills, backgrounds and expertise that allows legitimacy to identify and solve complex problems. The team was able to grow its network of people resources and especially those with authority to take appropriate action on a problem. The team built its potential for success by engaging authorizers in the learning process, thereby closing information gaps and building legitimacy for further action and engaging higher-level authority (Matt Andrews’ two dimensional ‘policy success’ diagram or ‘stairway to policy change success’).
Although the whole team never met physically, we managed to work together depending on our comparative skills and building trust. The course and the demands it put on team members’ busy schedules and commitments also proved that if you are determined to get something done, you can get it done. The team members learned new concepts such as iteration, positive deviance, the ‘fishbone diagram’, crawling design space and others. These important concepts guide on how to inform a learning process that seeks to understand and solve a complex education problem. The team also learned that policy reform failure is typically a consequence of starting with importing solutions instead of contextually understanding the problem first.
The problem identification process in PDIA practice is crucial because it is not just about understanding what is going but also about building a coalition of interested stakeholders that then come up with the most appropriate solution. This coalition building process starts with a small team and then escalates with each iteration. Each iteration produces small wins that are crucial for expanding the authorizing space. While, at first, we were not sure how we were going to work as a small team since we mostly did not know each other, the approach used for building team commitment, by developing a constitution, helped to resolve the initial anxiety. The team had, however, wondered why it needed to develop a constitution. But, the idea of committing to the group through a constitution, helped us to stay on track. Even when team members were busy, sometimes travelling locally and internationally, we committed to attending the course sessions and submitting assignments.
The team also learned that it is important to have good relations with superiors as authorizers. Besides, it was good to hear that the superiors also know the problems. Meeting the authorizers provided the insights and belief that the team could succeed. Ultimately, however, the team could see how learning, and depending on others, is the power of the agency of many. The team also could see why it was important to be intentional about working as a team. Trusting others on the team to make individual and country submissions without fail, for example, was reassuring. The commitment of ‘Team Aspiring Ants’ shows the aspirations we had for the course because attending the PDIA is a privilege. The teamwork made it possible for us to believe that even complex problems can be solved. Because of the PDIA course, we have also expanded our networks even for personal purposes.
At the beginning of the PDIA course, the team had identified ineffective teaching as the problem explaining poor learning achievement, but this changed when we spoke to the key actors at various levels of the education system such as the Provincial Education Officer (PEO), the District Education Board Secretary (DEBS), the Permanent Secretary (Education Services) and Head Teachers. We then learned that teacher supervision might be a bigger problem. Accordingly, we revised our fishbone diagram (see below).
When we first started developing our fish bone diagram, we were almost certain about our problem and what the sub causes were. Even as we held meetings, our understanding of the problem did not change. However, when we put some of the ideas to test through interactions with the PEO, DEBS, Permanent Secretary and Head Teachers, we got some great insights which influenced the team to change the problem that we had initially identified. Earlier, when we had identified the problem and the sub causes on the fish bone diagram, we only made assumptions without doing any research. The lesson we learned is that with further research and talking to more people on the ground, we were able to rethink our problem. The people we spoke to, however, had different views adding to the complexity of the problem. The different authorizers had varying views or voices especially given their perspective on the issues that caused education system failures. Accordingly, even though the team finally settled on teacher supervision, it is still the case that the problem is dynamic and requires further interrogation.
Team ‘Aspiring Ants’ Fish Bone Diagram
Working off the first version (above), the team made adjustments to the fish bone diagram working especially on the sub causes (see below in blue). The figure below highlights the sub causes that shift the blame from the teachers to more management and systemic issues. The key authorizers, for example, talked about creating a school level ethos about teaching and learning that ensures accountability not just for teachers but also their supervisors. The chain of accountability also extends to the higher level authorities who are responsible for teacher discipline or deployment.
Team ‘Aspiring Ants’ Final Fish Bone Diagram Adjustments
The PDIA course has validated the way some of us already work. The effort to codify the PDIA process is helpful and allows for application to different contexts. Focusing on problems rather than fronting solutions is an important discipline for correctly aligning what needs to be done. The solutions should be localised to be relevant and effective. It has been easy to provide solutions instead of tackling problems and contextualizing them. We will not, for the future, advance solutions and will apply this approach to many situations. We tend to assume a lot of things before we even engage people. The PDIA course has shown that when we engage with people, we learn more and are inclusive, whether from authorizers or positive deviance cases. That means that we cannot assume a one-size-fits-all approach to problem solving. System reform fails because the challenges are dynamic and lack a coalition of stakeholders committed to solving a problem.
The information can be used in many ways, including for personal issues and other sectors. It is relatable to many situations. Currently, some team members are using some of the lessons learned in the PDIA course to manage teams through building relationships and trust. We are also using some skills on time management and applying the delegation of work. Others are thinking more academically about the future of development work and if PDIA represents or can be the paradigm shift.
The team believes that the knowledge gained can be applied to many other situations. They should encourage non-practitioners to try the PDIA process as the concepts learned in the course are applicable to all sectors in terms of problem identification and solving. The very active and formative approach to learning through the PDIA process is effective, allowing us to know what works and what does not. The PDIA is a contextualized, rich, and real-time learning process.
This blog was written by the alumni of the PDIA for Education Systems Online Executive Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. 56 participants from 8 countries successfully completed this 12-week program from September – December 2022.